How necessary is it to have a gun?

[Scott7022]

Just had this discussion on another forum. The major issue with CBSA (Canadian Border Security Agency) and The LAW is that the legal interpretation of importing got all confused. For example Bear Spray is legal to own, carry in Canada. However, if a police officer asks you the dummy question; "what is this for?" and you answer "Bad Guys". It is now a weapon and can be confiscated as a threat to public safety and security. However if you say it is for "aggressive animals" (I don't encourage lying to anyone) then it can't be confiscated under threat to public loop hole. The importing issue. Nicotine liquid for Vape or E cigarettes can and has been confiscated at the border. While completely legal in concentrations up to 21mg to buy, over the counter and use on the street bringing it in over the border was risky. WTF? Right? The issue is in "possession of" and "importing" definitions and lazy senior administrators. Basically the Officer views anyone bringing stuff as importation. 1 10 100 10000000. Many Officers that had common sense let them slide, others well. You get people that eat glue in every class. This was recently fixed for the bear spray issue. The CBSA website clearly says it is approved. But remember, for the protection from wildlife. However, E-Liquid contains nicotine and nicotine is listed as a poison and requires a special certificate to "Import". Definitions are different between the two countries and those differences get really very stupid when it starts to bounce between Federal Firearm Registrar, RCMP, CBSA, ad nausea of interdepartmental agencies. To answer the 18.5 question. My buddy came up duck hunting from Portland several years ago and I walked him through the process to bring his shotgun. I told him that I had four and he could use one but, he wanted to bring his own. He brought a Rem 870 stainless marine pump. It had a short barrel, which we teased him about, 18.5 or 20 I am not sure. I know 20 is legal and I seem to remember 18.5 being the shortest legal. But then things got switched to CM (metric) and I quit paying attention as I am grandfathered. Many people from the USA come to hunt and do all the paperwork and guiding agencies are on point as to the process. The reality is they're going to be more concerned if you have a bunch of fresh fruit and meat.

 

[user 37446]

Yeah the border is weird. I just recrossed into BC this week and they didnt ask about what I had purchased, and I was gone 27 days. Just firearms, tobacco and alcohol. Didn't even ask about dairy! I should call the Dairy Board and let them know the border guys are slackin'...

 

[user 423]

To answer the 18.5 question. My buddy came up duck hunting from Portland several years ago and I walked him through the process to bring his shotgun. I told him that I had four and he could use one but, he wanted to bring his own. He brought a Rem 870 stainless marine pump. It had a short barrel, which we teased him about, 18.5 or 20 I am not sure. I know 20 is legal and I seem to remember 18.5 being the shortest legal.

Did your buddy hit anything with the 870? I wonder how accurate an 18.5" would be while target shooting also...

 

[Ballenxj]

Did your buddy hit anything with the 870?   I wonder how accurate an 18.5" would be while target shooting also...

There's a reason a shotgun is also called a scatter gun. The shorter the barrel (sans choke) the wider the pattern of shot will be, making it more likely to hit the intended target, but with less pellets actually hitting it. The longer the barrel (with choke) means more skill is required to actually hit something.

 

[user 423]

Dang BxJ, I did do it again. I should have somehow made it clear that target shooting with an 18.5" barrel would be a joke, requiring very little skill. Actually,for Scott it was a real question because it would seem that the Canadians manning the border crossings would sneer at you if you claimed that the sawed off shotgun you were declaring was for hunting or target shooting. The reg he referred to did specify standard weapons.

You know, I have mild ADHD and sometimes 'shoot from the hip' a little too much.

 

[Scott7022]

That was why we were teasing him about his short bang stick. He hit a few beer cans. My long Benelli Cordoba brought home the feathers. If I was going to go short I would get the Dlask Arms shorty. This gives you an idea how silly our restrictions are. https://dlaskarms.com/collections/shotguns/products/remington-870-shorty

 

[SoulRaven]

I like Benelli's myself, fine weapons. I had one on here for sale a few months ago, no bites so it still sits in the case.

 

[user 37446]

I know, this isn't a Canadian border crossing thread but to clarify any questions on what you can legally have:
(From The Times Herald.com newspaper site)

[font=arial, sans-serif]FIREARMS CLASSIFICATION[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]All firearms must be declared when someone enters into Canada. All firearms must meet registration and licensing requirements under Canada’s Firearms Act.[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]Firearms are broken into three groups: non-restricted, restricted and prohibited. Rules differ depending on which group of firearms are being transported.[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]Non-restricted firearms: semi-automatic rifles and shotguns with barrels longer then 18½ inches; and single-shot or manual repeating rifles and shotguns of any length. To bring a non-restricted firearm into Canada, non-residents must complete a Non-Resident Firearm Declaration, pay $25, and have a valid purpose.[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]Restricted firearms: Most handguns, semi-automatic rifles and shotguns with barrels between 4.14 inches and 18½ inches capable of shooting center-fire ammunition, firearms designed to fire after reducing the length to less than 26 inches through folding or telescoping. To bring a restricted firearm into Canada, non-residents must complete a Non-Resident Firearm Declaration, pay $25, have a valid purpose, and obtain an Authorization to Transport from the Chief Firearms Officer of the province.[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]Prohibited firearms: Handguns with barrels shorter than 4.14 inches, handguns designed to discharge a 25- to 32-caliber cartridge, rifles or shotguns sawed off or adapted to be less than 26 inches, or rifles or shotguns that have a barrel shorter than 18 inches, automatic firearms. Visitors to Canada cannot import prohibited firearms or prohibit weapons and devices.[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]PROHIBITED WEAPONS OR DEVICES IN CANADA[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]• Automatic knives such as switchblades[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]• • Centrifugal knives like flick or butterfly knives[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]• Gravity knives[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]• Pepper spray or mace[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]• • Nunchaku sticks[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]• Throwing stars[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]• Fighting chains[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]• Stun guns shorter than 480 mm[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]• • Crossbows designed for one-handed use[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]• • Push daggers[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]• • Spiked wristbands[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]• Blow guns[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]• Morning stars[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]• Brass knuckles[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]• Silencers[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]• • Cartridge magazines larger than five rounds for center-fire, semi-automatic rifles or shotguns, or 10 rounds for semi-automatic handguns[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]• Bullpup stocks[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]• Replica firearms (with the exception of antique firearms manufactured before 1898, not designed to discharge rim-fire, or center-fire ammunition; and long guns manufactured after 1898 that are reproductions of flintlock, wheel-lock or matchlock)[/font]
[font=Arial, sans-serif][font='Futura Today Bold', arial, sans-serif] [/font][/font]

And from a BC paper, 2016 article:

"The reminder comes less than 10 days after two men from Texas tried to bring hidden guns across the border on separate Canadian vacations.

The retirees from the Dallas area came separately across the border with their wives in St. Stephen, N.B.

There is no indication they knew each other.

The men, both in their 50s, had each denied having any firearms. But follow-up inspections of their vehicles revealed a Bersa Thunder .380 handgun, a Smith and Wesson .38 Special, a 12-gauge shotgun, a Rossi .357 Magnum (in the first vehicle) and a .40 Glock handgun (in the second vehicle), along with some pepper spray and some loose ammunition.

The men were fined $1,700 and $1,000, respectively, and their guns were destroyed. Both were then kicked out of Canada.

The number of guns seized at the Canada-U.S. border has increased steadily over the last four years, statistics provided by CBSA show. The count of total firearms seized and the number of total seizures (which can involve multiple firearms) all rose between 2011 and 2016."

 

[user 37446]

The phrase "kicked out of Canada" usually means now permanently barred from entry. They (Border Control) did have the option of allowing them to continue their travels but evidently chose to bar them due to their attitudes or lying.  FYI, if you have a DUI from the US you "may" not be able to enter Canada. Few people know this...

From "ezbordercrossing.com" site:

Begin quote

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Crossing the Canadian Border With a DUI[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Crossing the Canadian border with a DWI, DUI or Other Drunk Driving Offense
An offense of driving under the influence will typically not cause problems for Canadians entering the United States.   However . . . . . .
T[size=medium]he biggest surprise for most Americans is that they are very likely to be turned away at the Canadian border if they have any type of alcohol related offense.
[/size][/font]

• It does not matter if you are arriving as a passenger in another person’s car.
• It does not matter if you have no intention of driving in Canada at all.   For example, 4 to 5 passengers a week who take the ferry to Victoria Canada for a one-day walking sightseeing trip are turned back for DUI / DWI offenses even though they do not have a car with them.
• It does not matter if your offense was classified as a misdemeanor or a felony.
• It does not matter if you are a fan, guest, official, or anyone else entering Canada for special events. Former U.S. President G.W. Bush had to get a special waiver to enter Canada because of his 1976 drunken-driving offense in Maine.

We have a short video you can view which provides an overview of your options to enter Canada with a criminal record.

“But my Friend Got Across …”

You may hear stories of people who were allowed to cross the border even though they had a drunk driving offense.   Others will say that they were allowed to into the country 2 or 3 times but were then stopped the next time they tried to cross.  Why?  Because border officers have complete discretion to allow or deny entry to anybody.  You may get across, or you may be stopped.  You may be pulled in for interrogation, and then allowed to cross, or you may be sent back.   The simple fact is –  Canada considers drunk driving to be a serious offense.

As a general rule, the older your conviction (10 years or more), the better the chance that you have of being allowed to enter Canada without filing for a waiver.  However, you certainly cannot count on being granted entry.

There are several ways to obtain permission to enter Canada despite having a DUI or DWI on your record.  Most commonly, you will file for a Temporary Resident Permit (TRP), or file for Rehabilitation.  The TRP allows you into Canada for a specific trip. Being deemed “Rehabilitated” removes the issue completely so long as you do not commit another offense.  You should read carefully through our discussions on “Resolving Inadmissibility to Canada”.

Several Things You Shouldn’t Do:

Don’t lie.  If you are caught misrepresenting your record your chances of ever getting across the border again will drop significantly.  Canadian officers can ban you on the spot for an extended time and perhaps for life.

Secondly, do not attempt entry at a different border crossing on the same day thinking you have a fresh chance with a new officer.  Denied admissions are updated immediately in a centralized database and will be visible at all ports of entry.  If you look like you are trying to evade the system you will further jeopardize your ability to enter the country for the rest of your life.

Finally, there is a chance that the driver of the car, or people travelling with you, could also be deemed inadmissible – and even face criminal charges – if they are aware of your inadmissibility and your intent to hide it."

End quote

 

[tx2sturgis]

[font=arial, sans-serif]• • Spiked wristbands[/font]

Oh dang, I was all set to go to a Goth party up there.

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

The fact that a former US President needed a special waiver to visit Canada reminds me of the time Queen Elizabeth paid a state visit to Saudi Arabia.  The Saudi's had to first pass a special law making her an "honorary man" so they could treat her as an equal.  Talk about batshit stupid.

A decidedly unofficial observation from someone who isn't anybody official here.

There's a good possibility that people who need info on entering Canada will never find it in the middle of a thread devoted to another subject entirely, possibly one in which they have no interest whatsoever.

High quality info like you had in your posts should really be in it's own thread, in the appropriate section.  IMNPHO.

 

[highdesertranger]

I agree take the entering Canada stuff and start a new thread. anymore off topic stuff will be deleted. highdesertranger

 

[GotSmart]

I like it when threads are allowed to spin off other threads.  It makes things much nicer and more educational.  

Back to subject at hand ~~~

I have been convinced by this thread that gun education should be required in the schools.  It is OK to be against guns, but it is much better to completely understand what it is you are against.  It is unamerican to deny the basic education on the tools that make up this society.  Love guns or not, they are here, and the main tool that made this country free.  

You are free to defend yourself if you understand the tools we have available.  You are free not to have one because you are against violence.  The person that is there to protect you, (LEO)  carries guns, yes plural.  

But they can be a long way away from helping you.

 

[Ballenxj]

I like it when threads are allowed to spin off other threads.  It makes things much nicer and more educational.  
<-------->
But they can be a long way away from helping you.

Brings this saying to mind; When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

It's well established in law that the cops have no legal obligation to protect any individual.  Rather, they have a general obligation to society to apprehend killers after the fact, to make society safer.

I personally translate that to mean that the only legal obligation that the cops have is to show up after you're dead and draw the chalk outline around your body. 

Which is why I, personally, carry a gun.

 

[SoulRaven]

One of the more surprising Supreme Court decisions.

Not in any way political, I haven't a clue who was president at the time..

 

[jonsun]

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

One of the more surprising Supreme Court decisions.

Not in any way political, I haven't a clue who was president at the time..

Short but informative:

http://www.barneslawllp.com/police-not-required-protect/

 

[lenny flank]

I like it when threads are allowed to spin off other threads.  It makes things much nicer and more educational.  

Back to subject at hand ~~~

I have been convinced by this thread that gun education should be required in the schools.  It is OK to be against guns, but it is much better to completely understand what it is you are against.  It is unamerican to deny the basic education on the tools that make up this society.  Love guns or not, they are here, and the main tool that made this country free.  

You are free to defend yourself if you understand the tools we have available.  You are free not to have one because you are against violence.  The person that is there to protect you, (LEO)  carries guns, yes plural.  

But they can be a long way away from helping you.

I agree. If one is to have a weapon and act like an LEO, one should get the same weapons training that LEOs get (and be held to the same standards and responsibilities, and the same requirement to maintain proficiency).

Take Florida, for example. In Florida, to get a concealed carry permit, all you need to do is fire a gun, once. It does not need to be YOUR gun, and you do not need to actually hit anything.  You are then unleashed upon the public, free to carry a loaded weapon in any other state with a reciprocal CCW.

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

I agree. If one is to have a weapon and act like an LEO, 

If I have a smoke detector and a fire extinguisher, it's not because I want to play fireman.

If I keep a first aid kit around, it's not because I want to play doctor.

If I keep a gun, it's not because I want to play LEO.

In all three cases, this is emergency equipment that I might need to keep myself or a loved one safe when professional firemen, doctors, and LEOs aren't around.

In all three cases, If I don't know how to use them, they will be dangerous and less than useless.

As for LEO standards, when I was an armored car guard, I was required to meet the same marksmanship standards as the state police, and I gotta tell you they were pretty pitiful.  I easily shot expert on them, and that was at a time when I had no formal training at all, just a lot of plinking at tin cans.  I had friends who were part time cops, and they sweated every time quarterly qualification came up, they could just barely pass.  Don't talk to me about the need to meet LEO standards, they're often a joke.